DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Gidney 2020 ONOCT 174
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Ryan Charles Wilfred Gidney, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
RYAN CHARLES WILFRED GIDNEY (REGISTRATION #449311)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Rebecca Forte, OCT Marlène Marwah
HEARD: July 8, 2020
Christine Lonsdale and Nicholas Fitz, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Kirsty Niglas-Collins, for Ryan Charles Wilfred Gidney
Julie Maciura, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on July 8, 2020 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”). With the consent of the parties, and in accordance with section 3 of the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 5, Sched 3, this matter proceeded by way of an electronic hearing.
2Ryan Charles Wilfred Gidney (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but did have legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. Accordingly, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated December 21, 2018 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Ryan Charles Wilfrid Gidney is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Act in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);1
(b) he abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(c) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(d) he engaged in sexual misconduct as defined in section 1 of the Act;3
(e) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);
(f) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(g) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18);
(h) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19); and
(i) he engaged in a prohibited act involving child pornography as defined in section 1 of the Act.4
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the District School Board of Niagara (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Fort Erie, Ontario. During the 2016 – 2017 academic year, the Member taught [XXX] and [XXX] at the School.
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female grade [XXX] student at the School. Student 1 was [XXX] in the Member’s class.
During the 2016 – 2017 academic year, the Member failed to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries in his relationship with Student 1. More specifically, the Member:
(a) Accepted gifts, including coffees and snacks, from Student 1;
(b) Bought and/or gave gifts, including coffees/teas, to Student 1;
(c) Attended Student 1’s [XXX] several times outside of school hours;
(d) Communicated electronically through social media with Student 1;
(e) Allowed Student 1 to use the Member’s classroom to store Student 1’s personal belongings;
(f) Sat physically close to Student 1 while in the Member’s classroom alone;
(g) Allowed Student 1 to use areas of the School prohibited to students, including the staff kitchen near the Member’s classroom;
(h) Shared personal information about him and his family with Student 1;
(i) Spent increasing amounts of time with Student 1.
The relationship between the Member and Student 1 crossed the boundaries which ought to exist between a student and a teacher. It was the Member’s responsibility to maintain these boundaries and he failed to do so.
The relationship between the Member and Student 1 became the subject of discussion at the School. The rumours which circulated about the nature of the relationship between Student 1 and the Member caused Student 1 distress.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 – 6 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18), and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that depending on the penalty ordered by the Discipline Committee, the decision of the Committee and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, may be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (i) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5) and 1(7.3), and that he engaged in sexual abuse of a student, sexual misconduct and a prohibited act involving child pornography, as defined in section 1 of the Act, be withdrawn. College Counsel stated that the Panel’s permission to withdraw the subsection 1(5) allegation was being sought because it was duplicative of the allegation under subsection 1(14). College Counsel further requested the Panel’s permission to withdraw the sexual abuse of a student, sexual misconduct and child pornography allegations as there was no reasonable prospect of obtaining a finding with respect to these allegations. The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on July 8, 2020 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(7.2), 1(14), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above.
9The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member developed an inappropriate personal relationship with Student 1, a [XXX]-year-old female student who was a [XXX] in his class.
10The Panel found that the Member’s failure to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with Student 1 was psychologically abusive to the student, contrary to subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s boundary violations included exchanging gifts with Student 1, spending time alone with her, sitting inappropriately close to her at school and demonstrating preferential treatment toward her by inviting her to use staff-only areas in the School. The Member’s behaviour with Student 1 became the subject of rumours at the School, which caused the student distress.
11The Admitted Facts also demonstrate that the Member breached subsection 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, by failing to meet the expectations of “trust” and “care” codified in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession at section 32 of the Bylaws of the Ontario College of Teachers. Teachers are expected to be trustworthy in their professional relationships with students and the ethical standard of “care” requires that teachers demonstrate their commitment to student wellbeing through professional judgment. By seeking out opportunities to engage with Student 1 personally, including by attending her [XXX] after school, spending time alone with her, having conversations on social media, as well as discussing his personal life with her, the Member showed a lack of professional judgment and abused his position of trust and authority.
12The Member’s behaviour with Student 1 also contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97 by breaching section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Among other things, teachers are expected to set an example for students by acting as positive role models. Granting exceptional privileges to Student 1 at the School and exchanging gifts with her highlight aspects of how the Member failed to behave as an appropriate role model.
13The Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The Member’s boundary violations with Student 1 demonstrated a serious lack of professionalism, including when he visited Student 1 at her [XXX] outside school hours, communicated with her on social media, exchanged gifts with her, and broke school rules by giving Student 1 access to areas that were off-limits to students.
14Finally, the Member’s improper relationship with Student 1 as described above was unbecoming a member of the profession in that he undermined the reputation of the profession and violated the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers, contrary to subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.
F. PENALTY DECISION
15The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on July 8, 2020 the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario, or by videoconference, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
The Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of 12 months commencing on the 15th calendar day following the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries with students, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph 3(a)(i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report form the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
16The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Riley, 2019 ONOCT 61, Ontario College of Teachers v. Dean, 2018 ONOCT 66, Ontario College of Teachers v. Champion, 2015 ONOCT 10 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100.
17The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s misconduct had a compounded adverse impact on Student 1 when the Member’s failure to respect appropriate boundaries became visible and known to the School and to the wider community. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted his misconduct and participated in the disciplinary process, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing and preventing students from having to testify. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
18The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct with Student 1 warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the teaching profession are expected to exercise professional judgment in their interactions with students at all times. As a role model in a position of trust and authority, teachers must be mindful and maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times. The Member’s inappropriate interactions with Student 1, including conversations of a personal nature, visiting Student 1 at her [XXX] outside of school hours and sitting inappropriately close to her, demonstrate a concerning lack of professional judgment. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
19Given the nature and severity of the Member’s misconduct, the Panel finds that a 12-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The Member’s boundary violations with Student 1 were numerous and repeated and caused psychological distress when the nature of the Member’s relationship with Student 1 became the subject of rumours at the School. The Member’s inappropriate behaviour demonstrates a concerning failure to meet ethical standards and demonstrates inadequate care for the wellbeing of a student. While the cases presented by the parties are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and the cases confirm that a suspension of this duration falls within a range of acceptable outcomes. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by reinforcing the need to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students at all times. Recording the fact of the suspension on the public register will serve as a general deterrent by informing other members of the profession that there are serious consequences for failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with students.
20The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding appropriate boundaries with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will be tailored to the misconduct at issue in this case, will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher, and will advise him on how to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
21The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: July 12, 2020
John Hamilton, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Forte, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah Member, Discipline Panel